Trump Scores Huge Victory Over Stormy


Well folks, I’ve been absent from blogging a few days. I’ll discuss the reason in another post, but for now I want to share the news that porn star Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford) has lost her defamation suit against President Trump.

The reason the Daniels loss is important is the actual purpose for the suit was to embarrass President Trump and turn voters against him, particularly female voters. Which was especially telling when her creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti began drudging unreliable women that claim Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them.

 

The Trump Train News (TTN) has details.

 

JRH 10/16/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Trump Scores Huge Victory Over Stormy

 

By TTN Staff

10/16/2018

Trump Train News

 

By J C from USA (AEE2009_Jan09_Nikon 204Uploaded by Gohe007) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

 

Take the Republican Focus Group Survey

 

A federal judge has tossed out a defamation suit against President Trump filed by Michael Avenatti on behalf of Stormy Daniels.

To make matters worse the judge ordered that Stormy has to pay the president’s legal fees.

According to The Daily Wire:

 

A federal judge tossed out a defamation lawsuit from porn star Stormy Daniels against President Donald Trump on Monday, saying that words used by the president in a tweet directed at Daniels constituted “‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States.”

CNN noted that “Daniels sued Trump after he said Daniels’ story of a man threatening her not to come forward with her story of her alleged affair with Trump was ‘a total con job.'”

 

 

“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States,” District Judge S. James Otero wrote. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”

 

In a statement, Trump’s attorney Charles J. Harder said: “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.”

 

 

Michael Avenatti hasn’t been getting many wins lately. He also brought forth some more than suspect clients who made accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. However, this may be his biggest loss yet. Not only did he lose, but he and his client now have to pay for the president’s attorneys [sic] fees.

 

Take the Republican Focus Group Survey

 

___________________

© 2016 Trump Train News

 

American Update, LLC
107 S West Street, Suite 944
Alexandria, VA 22314

 

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas


John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

 

Yesterday guilty verdicts came to light against Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, both have a connection to President Trump. If you were paying attention to the Leftist MSM you would think blood was in the water stirring a shark frenzy was erupting with bloodthirsty glee. They all believe Trump association to guilty parties means Trump’s Administration is about to come tumbling down.

 

The poor delusional Left are forgetting to report the guilty verdicts have ZERO to do with collusion between Trump and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election.

 

Manafort was found accused of 18 counts but the jury could only agree on eight counts of guilt:

 

In a verdict announced at the same hour as President Trump’s longtime fixer pleaded guilty to other financial charges, Manafort was convicted of filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 to 2014, failing to report a foreign bank account in 2012, and two counts of bank fraud.

 

 

But the panel of six men and six women deciding Manafort’s fate in Alexandria, Virginia, deadlocked on 10 counts. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III declared a mistrial on those charges.

 

 

The 10 deadlocked charges were three instances of failing to file a foreign bank account in 2011, 2013 and 2014, two counts of bank fraud, and five counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

 

… (Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts in first trial conviction from Mueller probe; By Jeff Mordock; Washington Times; 8/21/18)

 

Michael Cohen chose a guilty plea deal rather than face a jury:

 

Cohen pled guilty to eight felonies. While the five counts of failure to pay taxes on over $4 million in income are the most consequential to him, most significant to the country are two counts of illegal “in kind” campaign contributions. …

 

… The media narrative suggests that these payments violate federal law because they were made to influence the outcome of the election. That is not quite accurate. It was not illegal to pay hush money to the two women — Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”). It was illegal for Michael Cohen to make in-kind contributions (which is what these pay-offs were) in excess of the legal limit. (Bold text by blog Editor)

 

… (What to Make of the Cohen Plea and Manafort Convictions; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 8/22/18 10:28 AM)

 

So what’s the deal with the press? Why the shark-fest of glee? Could it be because the Left is planting Fake News against Trump to stir-up hatred to enhance future impeachment sentiment and plant more Dems in Congress for such a proceeding?

 

JRH 8/22/18 (Hat Tip Elvis Knot in G+ Community The Resistance)

Please Support NCCR

*************************

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

 

By Jim Hoft

August 21, 2018

The Gateway Pundit

 

Cohen-Trump

 

Conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin interviewed the former FEC Chairman on his show.

 

Professor Bradley Smith said the payment Cohen pled guilty to DO NOT qualify as campaign violations.

 

Last night Mark Levin interviewed a former FEC Chairman who explained why a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels cannot be considered an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign, thus violating campaign finance law.

 

Via The Right Scoop:

 

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”

 

Here’s the audio:

 

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation

 

[Posted by TheNewsCommenter

Published on Aug 21, 2018]

 

Professor Bradley Smith wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal in April.

 

Shortly before the 2016 election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until this February.)

 

Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes” the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws.

 

But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense.

 

Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe.

 

FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.

 

If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law.

++++++++++++++++++

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

 

By Frieda Powers 

August 22, 2018 

BizPac Review

 

No sooner had Michael Cohen pleaded guilty than a Democrat lawmaker called for a new investigation to determine if President Donald Trump committed a crime.

 

Rep. Joaquin Castro accused Trump of being an “unindicted co-conspirator” and called on Congress to launch a probe into possible criminal action by the president.

 

VIDEO: Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump – MSNBC

 

“And now the question is what will the US Congress do about that,” Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said. “I believe that the judiciary committee in both the House and the Senate should open an investigation tomorrow morning.”

 

But conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin provided a hard lesson in how the law actually works, noting how what the president is accused of doing is not even illegal.

 

“I want to help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course the professors and I want to help them understand what the law is,” Levin told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin slams Michael Cohen’s plea deal

 

[Posted by Fox News

Published on Aug 21, 2018

 

‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ host Mark Levin says Lanny Davis had Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of criminality that don’t exist on ‘Hannity’.

 

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.]

 

The general counsel for the Clinton mob family Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist,” he added. “It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent.”

 

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything,” Levin argued, using an example to drive home his point.

 

“Say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We have had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want the negative publicity. So he says to the private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done,” Levin explained. “Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal. Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York, it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point?”

 

The former head of the Federal Election Commission, appearing on Levin’s show, also clarified how Cohen’s alleged “hush” payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election is not an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign or a violation of campaign finance law.

 

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation [SEE ABOVE in The Gateway Pundit post]

 

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason,” Professor Bradley Smith told Levin Tuesday.

 

The expenditures alleged by Cohen, Smith explained, are not violations of campaign finance law even though they “might incidentally benefit your campaign,”

 

“The argument seems to be, and it hasn’t changed,” Levin summed up, “is that, if I spend money to make myself look better, or to take away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life and use my own money, then somehow that is a campaign contribution…which it is not.”

____________________

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

___________________

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

 

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

_________________

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

 

Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved. BizPac Review

Is Dislike of POTUS an Impeachable Offense?


Clem DeWitt takes on the Leftists desiring to impeach President Trump for the constitutional violation of not liking POTUS. WAIT! There is NO such clause in the U.S. Constitution!

 

Constitutional Sections Regarding Impeachment

 

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

 

The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

 

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

 

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment [sic] shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

 

Article 2, Section 4

 

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

… There Is MORE Pertaining to the Judiciary (Impeachment Clauses; University of ChicagoThe Founders Constitution; © 1987)

 

Impeachment Clause Commentary:

 

 

 

 

DeWitt includes the Leftist mania of smearing Conservatives’ character to brainwash voters to hate.

 

Enjoy the read.

 

JRH 3/16/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

Is Dislike of POTUS an Impeachable Offense?

 

Discovered at PATRIOTS UNITED TO SAVE AMERICA (Facebook Secret Group)

By  Clem DeWitt

3/16/18 10:34am

 

Most Democrats and their reliable, compliant, obedient Brown Shirts that make up the bulk of the US press, are engaged in a relentless, bloodless coup against President Donald Trump, Constitutionally elected by We The People.

Before taking his Oath of Office, there were cries to Impeach Trump. Of course the Constitution’s ‘Impeachment clause’ only covers Officers of the Constitution, not those in waiting. On the Floor of the People’s House, Rep. Green, D-TX, has led a circus that offers Impeachment articles against Trump, articles that are not just outside the clause, they are particulars based on a dislike of Trump and nothing less, or more. The Framers, intellectually light years ahead of Trump’s detractors, did not include personal dislikes for removal from Office and this Republic is better for that wisdom. If Democrats should prevail by some bastardization of the clause, the Constitution would forever be subject to on-the-spot amendment, rendering it a catch all for someone’s pique, their angst, their politics.

Before the 2016 Election, daily we were treated to an accuser and another that followed the next day and the day after the next with complaints that Trump had engaged in sexual predation of a most unsavory nature. Led by Gloria Allred, a self-disgracing lawyer who listens for ambulance sirens, great theater was made public with Allred and an accuser complete with tears and tissues. After Trump was elected, the tears and tissues evaporated as quickly as did the accusers. (Lisa Bloom, Allred’s daughter, would highlight the sequel with her client offering a complaint against Judge Roy Moore, Republican Candidate from Alabama for the US Senate. Tears and tissues were followed by evaporation. Allred and Bloom make up the DNC’s Criminal Investigation Division when it comes to Snidely Whiplash Republicans)

Enter Stormy Daniels, latest darling of the Impeach Trump crowd. It should be noted that whatever might have taken place between Trump and Daniels took place before Trump became President. But, as steady as any drum beat, the Daniel’s story on most left leaning news organizations is front and center. In print, it is above the fold, in the visual world, it leads off so-called newscasts. To some minds vacant of understanding-knowing the Impeachment clause, Daniels is the Impeachable offense that can take Trump down.

“Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether Daniels had ever been threatened with physical harm, Michael Avenatti (Daniel’s lawyer) succinctly replied, “Yes.” (THE HILL). Of course Avenatti would not entertain follow up questions, instead saying “people will have to tune in to ’60 Minutes’ on March 25,” when CBS is scheduled to air an interview with Daniels.” (Yep, CBS, the network that gave us Rather and Mapes, co-conspirators to bring down President George W. Bush) Will Avenatti reveal the nature of a physical threat made against Daniels and by whom? Or is this a page from the Allred-Bloom playbook of salaciousness fabricated by shadowy, evaporating accusers?

Stay tuned as this Kabuki Theater of The Absurd continues day after day after day and all because most Democrats and most in the US press dislike Trump to the point of seeking to upend the Constitution if necessary to take down Trump.

____________________

Title determined by the Editor from the text.

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Clem DeWitt